This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
If the lead were supposed to present details of the anatomy, the best available picture would be File:Vulva labeled english.jpg, because of the detailed labelling. But this image is used in the Structures section, while the lead is simply meant to show the vulva as it appears to the casual observer. In that case, one should use an image of a vulva with pubic hair such as File:Dcp02328.jpg, because that is the biological default. As a matter of fact, I think the labelling could also have been done clearly on an image with pubic hair, as it is in older anatomy textbooks. People tend to exaggerate the degree to which pubic hair obscures the structures (cf. File:VulvaDiagram-800.jpg, which used to be OK, though more detailed labelled images such as File:Vulva labeled english.jpg have been created in the meantime). But this was the choice of the creator of the image, and I don't intend to make an alternative one, so I'll live with that.--Anonymous44 (talk) 14:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why the "biological default" should outweight the "cultural default". If this is the look that most people prefer for themselves, why not keep it. Besides it's the better picture in terms of photographic quality.--Lamilli (talk) 01:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a big if. How do you know most people prefer it? And which culture are we talking about? It's probably easier to agree on what's the biological default than on what's the cultural default.--JWWalker (talk) 06:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about english-speaking, western readers that - and I'm quite sure about that - make up the main audience here. You wouldn't mind either if a face of a human male has no beard our moustache - because he shaved. Or if, on a photo or a hand or a foot, the fingernails are cut. Biologically it would be "correct" to just let them grow but it's a cultural thing to remove them.--Lamilli (talk) 11:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The latter definitely are "cultural things", but I'm pretty sure pubic hair removal is not even remotely widespread, except perhaps among the subset of women who pose for photographs of their pubic area. PowersT13:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that this "subset" differs in any way from the majority of females ou there. Not only my own experience tells me that this is the standard today, also accourding to sources like this it is widespread.--Lamilli (talk) 14:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Among all women? From puberty to old age? All over the world? I think you need to get out more :-) No, you are basing this on porn stars and their young emulators only, I am afraid. --Nigelj (talk) 14:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My elder sister (age 46) has been shaving hers since she was 18. She has never been involved in such photographic activities - she just doesn't like having hair "down there" as she calls it. An ex-girlfriend (who was a nude model) simply refused to shave for anybody. So, you can't categorise. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My point entirely. So we can't say that the 'majority' of women shave all their lives nor therefore that showing unshaved pubic hair in an encyclopedia is unnatural or unrepresentative in any way. --Nigelj (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but thats also true the other way around. You can't say that the unshaved one is unrepresentative, nor can you say that about the shaved one. If you assume that one half of the population shaves and the other doesn't, than it just doesn't make a difference in terms of representativness. But the picture right now (which was here well established for good reason) is just better in photographic aspects. Besides: why do people bother. If you like to see pubes, there's a picture just underneath it that depicts an unshaved vulva.--Lamilli (talk) 00:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"If I want to see pubes"? This isn't about my, or your, pornographic preferences! I'd like to see some references that back up these assertions. Not just from the porn industry, or a friend or a sister, but some worldwide WP:RSverifiable facts. Until then I maintain that pubic hair is 'the biological default', and therefore is the one for top-level emphasis in any encyclopedia. Based on this, we could have individuals arguing that they prefer to see clitoral piercings, and everybody in their street has one, or that they prefer to see the results of female genital cutting, and everybody in their village has had it done. This is not the way Wikipedia gets written. --Nigelj (talk) 10:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. "...these days, with most female porn stars having their pubic hair removed ... [in Germany] ...50 percent of women between the ages of 18 and 25 admit to shaving their pubic hair ... a secret desire to appear harmless, immature and infantile". It's a urban youth fashion in some wealthy western countries, so let's pretend it's the norm and help the rest of the world to feel inadequate about their normal body? Wikipedia is not in the depilation business ("Even the biggest slaves to fashion can get tired of having to pull out the razor blade every couple of days ... €200-300 ($280-420) per treatment"), so their is no need for us to help publicise this fashion trend for the industry under the guise of education about the human body. We don't need to help people become dissatisfied with their perfectly normal human body (or their girlfriend's): the advertising and porn industries can do that perfectly well without our help. --Nigelj (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with you Nigelj. It seems a nonsense that we are promoting shaving as 'normal'. It's like promoting circumcision or caesarean sections as normal. These are aberations from the norm and whilst important, are not representative. Gillyweed (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I may put my two cents in, that does not really matter if it shaved or not. It only matters if the photograph shows the subject clearly. From this point a photo of a shaved vulva is better, because there is no hair which may hide some details. Same if we were talking about an illustration for labia minora I would not care about hair if they do not interfere with the labia. Ones who like natural view may add additional photo somewhere else in the article. (Currently I am gently trying to convince my GF to make some images for this and other articles, but very unlikely will succeed. If anyone from Asia wishing to be a model, please let me know at my talk page.) Yestadae (talk) 02:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And, since its not about shaving, why is this such an tenacious debate. This article is not about shaving, thus it does not matter if the vulva on the picture is shaved or not. If we have the choice between a low-quality unshaved and a high-quality shaved one, I'd say we just stick to the better image.--Lamilli (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not a whole new argument, that is what I was saying from the beginning on. I allready mentioned a couple lines above that I'm not convinced of the quality of your picture. Why? Because it is inferior to the established one in terms of sharpness, resolution, noise and saturation. The whole argument here went like this: the established imgage was swapped with the not-so-good image of this pubic haired vulva that you just mentioned. I reverted this and now you argued that your picture would be better because it has hair. I said that hair is nit an issue here, if we have a good-quality shaved image and a low-quality hairy one, I'd prefer the first. Your reasoning was that hair is a biological default, I replied that this wouldn't really matter since we're cultural creatures and if it is common to remove them, then it's now problem to display it in that state. Like you would't complain a about a guys face being shaved in an article about "head" or "face" instead of having a huge, untrimmer beard. You said that it wouldn't be common, that only pornstars do that, I said it would be common, you wanted numbers and sources, I gave you that and now you also came to the conclusion, that this article is not about shaving. So why do we give this issue such a focus. Let's stick to the good, old picture. Bides that: what are you actually worried about. That people believe that there is no such thing as pubic hair? There is this picture of a completely untrimmed vulva right below. Isn't that enough to illustrate.--Lamilli (talk) 11:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I love the self righteous crusader types who are fretting that a picture of a shaved vulva is forcing Western names on the supposedly happily hairy women of non-Western countries. It apparently never occurred to them that some nonWestern cultures practice pubic hair removal too, as in the Middle East.
The fact is, few of the images shown to illustrate the human body are completely natural. Most of us cut our finger and toe nails, brush our teeth and wash and comb our hair at minimum. Pubic hair removal has become just another part of many women's regular grooming routines. You can argue ad nauseum whether this is a good thing or not, but this discussion page is not really the place to do so. The question should be, does the picture clearly show the different features of the vulva?--FL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.139.129 (talk) 04:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know where you are getting this idea that being completely shaved is part of a woman's regular grooming. If you're going to make a blanket statement like that, at least back it up with some reliable numbers, and by reliable I do not mean some poll you found in Cosmo. This whole shaving phenomenon is a relatively recent trend that started in the late 90s, anyway. The people here holding it up as some kind of bastion of normality have very short memories. If I had to guess at the majority, I would say most women trim and wax/shave the bikini line but few go completely bald, just like in the instances of hair or nails, people don't normally shave their heads or cut their fingernails down to the nail bed. 98.155.29.185 (talk) 09:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There has been no valid reason for having a picture of a vulva that is not biologically default. Only peoples oppinions on what is more common and the likes. A picture of a vulva is supposed to represent what a vulva looks like; not to be as easy as possible to find all the anatomical details on. That is what diagrams are for. Otherwise I could argue that the picture of a human eye in its coresponding article is inappropriate because the eyelids are obscuring the view of the eye itself. I am going to change the picture now. If you believe that I am wrong in changing it; explain why below before you change it back.
Sopastar (talk) 05:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's been a bizarre edit war drifting on between some (including Sopastar) that want a hairy but poor quality photo of a vulva (File:Asian_vulva.jpg) and a good quality but weird photo of a hairless vulva (File:7-15-07NAP_441.jpg). What I don't understand is why either photo is being argued over. File:Dcp02328.jpg displayed on this page ticks all the boxes. It's a good quality photo, it actually looks like a vulva (!), its hairy (so the 'biological default' people should be happy), but the hair doesn't obscure any of the bits (so the anti-hairies should be happy). Why would anyone object to a picture that doesn't look like either a plucked turkey or 70's porn? —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[]] [[[User:Winkmann99|Winkmann99]] (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that Dcp02328.jpg is currently the best we have. I don't like the fashion for cropping so tightly that the viewer has no idea of scale or positioning (as seen above too), or desaturating the colour. --Nigelj (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What happened was that Lamilli (talk·contribs) fought it back out, twice, telling us to go and read the talk page! [2][3]
To clarify my above post - if there was enough, as in a lot of consensus I would agree to Dcp02328. I don't see enough consensus and the original image should remain. And who is this IP 86.164.246.57 who keeps impersonating Winkmann99? Slightsmile (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just chose a picture at random to raise the question. I am indeed in favour of the picture Dcp02328.jpg. There is now at least five people supporting this image, and I believe that is enough consensus. If you disagree; please point to the overwhelming consensus that you claim to exist for 7-15-07NAP_441.jpg. -Sopastar (talk) 01:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my point of view Dcp02328.jpg is not a perfectly suitable image. Most of all I can't see a reason to swap a good quality image with a bad quality image. Not only that the image quality is comparably low, I don't think that it depicts an "average" vulva. I know that there is no such thing as a standard vulva and you find a huge variation, but the size of the labia minora is certainly above average. --Lamilli (talk) 13:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the objection is that the labia minora are larger than average, wouldn't you also say that about the image that it replaces? I don't claim that Dcp02328.jpg is perfect, just that I prefer it to 7-15-07NAP_441.jpg. --JWWalker (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There we have it: Sopastar asks, "please point to the overwhelming consensus that you claim to exist" and Lamilli replies "In my point of view...". Lamilli has been objecting to this photo for nearly a year here, with varying arguments. First it was that shaved is best, then it was a low quality image, now the labia are too large. On none of these points has there been consensus from others here. --Nigelj (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There we have what? I wasn't answering to the comment above, I was commenting the picture swap. And I'm still behind all of those arguments. What I'm saying is: let's take a high quality image of a "normal" looking vulva. And shaven or not should be secondary.--Lamilli (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You think 7-15-07NAP_441.jpg is 'normal'? The labia minora are just plain weird quite frankly - definitely on the outer edge of the normal spectrum. 86.164.246.57 (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The hairy one you've chosen to put into the article is a bit extreme (!). But both the hairy and shaved are a major improvement on the duck-billed platypus you previously wanted. 86.164.246.57 (talk) 01:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just a visitor here, but I appreciate the hairy vulva photos (last two). Not only are they natural, but beautiful and hot. I don't think the hairiest is "extreme," unless a woman can be "extreme" due to her body. One could argue that a shaved vulva is "extreme," as in not found in nature. But I call for no pictoral discrimination against the best body part ever invented, besides the penis of course.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.119.136 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The right hand image above is the best yet for an unshaved view. The third one above describes itself as 'left in natural state, unshaved and untrimmed for more than a month', which goes to show the difference a few years can make. Showing both the unshaved and the shaved, as we currently do, is probably the best we can do. --Nigelj (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm new to this discussion, but I think it's pretty amusing how big an issue this seems to be. I think vulvas come in all different shapes and sizes, and there is no "average" vulva. That's like asking, what is the "average person"? I dunno, it varies by culture, by age, etc. There is NOTHING "wrong" or "weird" about 7-15-07NAP_441.jpg, nor is the current image, or any other image. They all look like vulvas. I think the article should have more than one picture of a vulva to reflect the diversity of them. 7-15-07NAP_441.jpg, the current image, and Asian_vulva.jpg are all good candidates. Because it is a decision made for vanity, and not biologically determined, shaved or unshaved should make no difference at all, except that the hair may obscure the parts. But in the images I mentioned, this is not a concern. 75.252.133.240 (talk) 06:54, 4 May 2011 Greenhplover (talk) 06:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)(UTC)[reply]
Diagrams vs Photographs
It seems to me that the discussion about diagrams and photographs is overly concerned with offending people. The core concern is the truth. How can we best communicate the truth should be the issue.
Anatomy is a science. Science understands that the whole truth is much too big to pursue as a realistic goal. Scientists do not try to describe the details of every individual human on earth. Scientists try to build a model of the human being, and make that model as realistic as possible, while constantly remembering that it is just a model.
As mentioned by Powers T 14:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC), photographs and diagrams (drawings) serve different purposes. I think that diagrams best illustrate commonalities while photographs emphasize diversity. Where human anatomy is the subject, the very nature of a diagram implies that it is illustrating what humans have in common. So I think that a diagram is appropriate and necessary for any part of the human anatomy that can have significant differences among individuals, or can change as a person ages or has experiences, such as the vulva through child birth. Diversity among individuals could best be demonstrated by a large collection of photographs. In the case of the vulva, the photographs could be labeled by age, pre- or post-puberty, virgin or sexually active, pre- or post- childbearing. Changes due to experiences could best be demonstrated by before-and-after photographs.
Perhaps one day people will volunteer to be photographed throughout their life, including close ups to show how we change through time. Considering how long photography has been around, it seems strange that such a project has not already begun.
This article should definitely include links to 'Design A Vagina' and perhaps other examples of vulva art.
Offending people is a seperate subject. It should be handled at an entirely different level. There are too many people in the world who can be offended by too many different things. It does seem strange to me that when you jump from a search engine page directly into the Wikipedia Vulva article, you are immediately presented with a photograph of a vulva, with no warnings whatsoever. Offending people is bad manners and should be avoided by warnings or similar techniques. The whole issue of offending people should not involve any discussion of censorship; censorship is not needed and is itself offensive to many people.
I'm sorry, but I don't want to see Wikipedia move toward having a splash screen before each page saying "WARNING: YOU MAY SEE A PICTURE OF THE SUBJECT OF THIS ARTICLE." PowersT14:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe someone who is so emotionally fragile that they cannot tolerate looking at a picture of a vagina shouldn't be reading an article about vaginas.--FL
Maybe someone can tell me why there are half a dozen photos of women with their legs spread on this article & discussion pages, and absolutely NO photos of actual men on the Penis page? Maybe if you think on it for awhile, you'll understand why some people are offended by this, and realize that it has nothing to do with "prudery".FlaviaR (talk) 09:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I swear I opened that page and thought that was child porn. The picture is not medically orientated nor are any of the alternatives. Look at any anatomy textbook. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.220.155 (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)174.252.232.67 (talk) 23:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)fyi: my 11 year old daughter was reading an informative article on Kotex.com and the word 'vulva' came up, not knowing what it was, she went to Wikipedia. Imagine her shock & horror at seeing these pictures unwittingly. Has no one stopped to think that young, pre menstrual girls are using Wikipedia to satiate curiosity about their changing bodies? Perhaps a hand drawn diagram would be better?[reply]
Human centric
This article is so focused on the human vulva you would never know that any other species had one, there is a hugely diverse range of vulval structures among mammals that are not present in humans, each with different functions in reproduction and yet nothing is written about them, never mind any photographs. This is a huge omission in the article, maybe renaming it to "human vulva" would be more appropriate. 90.205.124.243 (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's been a bizarre edit war drifting on between some (including Sopastar) that want a hairy but poor quality photo of a vulva (File:Asian_vulva.jpg) and a good quality but weird photo of a hairless vulva (File:7-15-07NAP_441.jpg). What I don't understand is why either photo is being argued over. File:Dcp02328.jpg displayed on this page ticks all the boxes. It's a good quality photo, it actually looks like a vulva (!), its hairy (so the 'biological default' people should be happy), but the hair doesn't obscure any of the bits (so the anti-hairies should be happy). Why would anyone object to a picture that doesn't look like either a plucked turkey or 70's porn? 86.164.246.57 (talk) 14:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excitement section needs some work
"Vaginal lubrication begins first. This is caused by vasocongestion of the vaginal walls. Increased blood pooling there causes moisture to seep from the walls. These droplets collect together and flow out of the vagina, moistening the vulva."
Lubrication has other mechanisms than vasocongestion. The imagination of droplets seeping and collecting in a pool is pretty amusing. Richiez (talk) 12:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Racial Bias
I believe that the pictures on this page impart a racial/ethnic bias by featuring what appear to be exclusively the vulvae of caucasian or east asian women. Women of other races have not only differently colored vulvae, but significantly larger labia. As this population represents a sizable proportion of the world's population of women, the pictures on this page give a disproportionately caucasian/east asian ethnocentric bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.10.26.241 (talk) 09:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Does the race of the pictured women change the educational value of the article? No. And I doubt the contributes to this article SPECIFICALLY added only white/east asian pictures in order to be racially biased, its likely because educationally appropriate pictures of female genitals are more readily available in the form of white women. Seriously, try and find an educational picture of any other race... good luck.
Because I really don't care as much about this issue as you and 134.10.26.241 apparently do. That, and I'm more interested in adding references to articles and tidying categories and wording than I am in hunting down public domain pictures. But hey, if you think it would improve the article, by all means, go for it. Asarelah (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so sick of the ignorance of people on wikipedia. Since I will probably otherwise face ad hominem attacks, I will say that I'm white, but that I agree that this is a serious problem on wikipedia, especially in depictions of genitals. Having such a limited set of images actually DOES detract from the educational value. There's a lot of variation in appearance of vulvas. Some of that variation is due to the amount of melanin in the skin. People are often ignorant of a lot of this variation and it's important to not present a monolithic notion of what genitalia are (and thus imply what they should be like). Surely, the detractors can at least agree that having only white or East Asian pics here constitutes a form of bias even if they think that's all it is. --Prepuce4Life (talk) 08:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. Vulvas from people of various races would probably improve the article. If you own pictures of vulvas from other races that you're willing to release into the public domain, go for it. Asarelah (talk) 23:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I went over to Wikimedia commons out of curiosity and I found three photographs of black woman's vulva, but they aren't terribly good quality because the woman is photographed bent over in two and lying on her side in one rather than on her back. I'll suppose add the side one to the gallery for now, but we really need better quality images of people of color. Asarelah (talk) 23:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
134.10.26.241, that is a stereotype. I was actually under the impression that white women have longer labia, while black women have bigger clitorises. The image Dcp02328.jpg that was in the article is of a white woman, and her labia minora are bigger than average. I believe the variation in vulvas is greater between individuals than between races. Greenhplover (talk) 07:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also believe there is a need to get photos of vulvas from women of different ethnicities on Wikipedia. Using only photos of white individuals re-enforces that White is the Standard, which is what most of North American society seems to advocate....
Transitional (talk) 00:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pre-Puberty Vulva?
I may be unaware of what exactly is defined as child pornography, but assuming the person pictured isnt someone who didnt hit puberty until they were 18... isnt this child porn? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.160.17 (talk) 02:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The use of this image struck me as odd and somewhat suspect as well. It was uploaded recently, and the uploader is apparently Italian. He has had a conversation in user talk pages with someone else about it that I translated in Google Translate, and I can't draw a conclusion of the age of the person depicted, but breach of child pornography laws were drawn into question. I think this image should probably be deleted or at least removed from any pages it is used in, and the uploader should be contacted by a moderator. -- Ifrit (Talk) 00:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what picture you are talking about, but I would like to point out that nudity and pornography are very different things. Nudity is not a requirement for child pornography and not all pictures of nude children constitute child pornography. One could easily see photos of nude children (along with their parents etc.) on nudist sites, and these sites are the first to point out that they are protected even by american laws. The first commenter sounds like a YouTube commenter that sees breastfeeding videos on YouTube and calls it child abuse, since he sees breasts as sexual objects.
I agree with the fact that nudity and pornography in regards to both adult and child are not the same, and the law agrees with me. The fact that the human body is shunned in a society of humans is beyond belief. I find it very confusing to think how many people in the world have sunk low enough to even hate who they are... Human.
I think that an image of a child would not be inappropriate for educational use, although there are only minor differences to the appearance. This whole discussion is like how people cannot use the proper terms for the penis and vagina to their children leaving them confused, ill-informed and frankly in my opinion uneducated. --Nikolai508 (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not censored; but it does abide by the rule of Common Decency, and Alternatives by consensus should be sought in favour offensive images. Personally, I've never understood why diagrams are not simply used, as a physical photo is clearly gratuitous. The manner in which people fervently and aggressively defend their inclusion indicates that they want physical photos to be there simply for the offence/shock factor.
Articles that are not about sexually explicit parts of the human body mysteriously manage to get by without half a dozen user-contributed images. Wikipedia should not be catering to amateur exhibitionists. Jtrainor (talk) 02:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why are photos gratuitous? That labial operation is well illustrated by the photos. Unless you get specific, I don't think we have much to discuss here. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have yet to see a "diagram" that does half as good a job of conveying what a vulva really looks like as a photograph does. If a truly representative diagram were created, it'd be just as offensive as a photo, wouldn't it? PowersT12:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SV/LtPowers
Re [4]: I agreed with Slim's changes. (1) The plastic surgery image is somewhat misleading, as the vulva shown on the left is really quite normal, and not a typical candidate for such surgery. (2) That File:Vulva with tiny labia minora.jpg is not a suitable lead image should be clear from its image description – we should have a more typical image. (3) I don't find the captions in the image Slim put in particularly off-putting, but educationally useful. All in all, I advocate reverting to Slim's version. --JN46619:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a good idea to start dissecting whether or not a particular vulva is "normal" or not. I also don't quite see what relevance that has to a picture depicting labiaplasty. By all means, if you know of a better image, I'd be happy to review it. PowersT22:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Teenage girls reading this article have no idea what the filename of a particular image is. But even so, if the filename is a concern, that can be changed; it's no reason to remove the image entirely from the article. And the labiaplasty image is very valuable; why would you want to remove it without any replacement image? PowersT14:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The filename is an accurate description of what the image shows (and the image may indeed show a surgically altered vulva; unfortunately, it is the only image uploaded by that user, and no further detail is given). The labiaplasty image is potentially misleading, as the "before" image shows an entirely normal vulva that would not be a prime candidate for plastic surgery. --JN46614:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the filename is accurate, then what's the problem? And who says the "before" image shows an "entirely normal vulva"? Are you a plastic surgeon? PowersT15:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not the lead image; we have two. The two should show a range of features, and I don't think we should have one with labels and one without (labeled images will work better farther down the article). Thanks for providing some alternative labiaplasty suggestions; I think the first one will work well. I wish SV had replaced rather than simply removed the previous image if it was unsuitable. PowersT15:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to your adding either of these images for the PS section; glad we've come to an agreement. If you object strongly to having the labelled image in the infobox, couldn't we just move it further down? The labels are useful. (I'm pretty sure we have labelled images in other infoboxes.) Cheers, --JN46616:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with the labels per se; I just think if we're going to have two pictures in the infobox (which is probably a good idea), they ought to be comparable. I prefer the introductory images to be free of extra accoutrements. PowersT17:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the objections are right in a way. Still, the new images were not perfectly suited as well, so I put up these as a compromise solution.--Lamilli (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clumsy opening sentence
"The vulva is the external genital organs of the female mammal."
This doesn't sound right to me; "is" = singular, whereas "are" = plural.
I would suggest that the vulva is the external genital something, but not organs.
I dunno. I don't even like Swedish cars.
TheMadBaron (talk) 01:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A minor critique regarding this line- "Sheela Na Gig, grotesque figurative sculpture with exaggeration of vulva." It is very common for depictions to show an exaggerated vulva and breasts as a sign of fertility; see Venus of Willendorf and her prominent pudendal cleft for a very famous example. Why, then, is this sculpture deemed "grotesque?" That commentary is certainly POV and shows ignorance as to other exaggerated depictions common in art representing fertility or revering the vulva. From the Sheela Na Gig page- "Much of the disagreement about the figures is based on determining exactly what they are meant to represent." Perhaps the original artist meant for it to be a beautiful sign of fertility, not anything "grotesque?" Who are we to assume the meaning behind these figures?
These are an artist's impression - while I know that variation is discussed in the article, this particular image seems to be a selection of caricatures rather than anything of any educational or informative intent. (disclosure - I don't think that they are very well drawn, either but I realise that this is subjective) pablo20:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File:Variation of female genitalia.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
The womb is the uterus. the vulva is the door and ability to do
In india the yoni is the word merely for the outter vulva. In fruedian times doctors were prejudical in their obssession with the females interor life denying her external. what a good article on the vulva until you miss associated things. Over emphasizing males external and denying his internal in the case of his prostate. Here you have a chance to break that ignorance. Again the womb is the uteus the intermal abiliity to create life and carry that life . the vulva is the door way, and symbol of woman's external expression and ability to recieve pleasure. Woman's external expression was so feared that clitorectomies were common up until the 1950's. In the victorian era, women were told to remain passive in bed and not to ejoy anything. Another related word is the middle Eastern word cun, a woman's cave, that implies a look at the external structue with an opening. This is what gives us the slur cunt and the phrase cungalingus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.130.182 (talk • contribs)
A Vulva.jpeg
I can tell you with extreme certainty that the vagina shown in 'A Vulva.jpeg' is underage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.3.222 (talk • contribs)
The entries related to genitalia should be similar for both sexes. The penis entry leads first to the penises of all animals that have them, and then links to the human penis. The vulva entry should be similar.
On the human penis page, there is a helpful drawing of the stages of development of the penis. The vulva entry should contain something similar.
On the human penis page, there are fewer photos than on the vulva page. This should be corrected one way or the other to avoid the appearance of bias or problematic subtext.
All of the photos on the penis page show pubic hair, although some men remove all or part of their pubic hair. Including so many pictures of female genitals with hair removed is imbalanced, and unnecessary for educational or informational purposes.
On the vulva page, there are many images of different types of vulvas, but the penis page does not include a similar gallery. This should be corrected one way or the other. Additionally, if the vulva page includes a photo of pierced genitals, the penis page should be similar, showing piercing, tattoo, or some other adornment.
When showing variations in external genitalia, I agree with other readers that it is important to include pictures of people from various races. Both the vulva and penis pages are currently in danger of appearing biased toward providing information to a mostly white, male audience.
One other thing to consider is that there are not many representations of “abnormal,” diseased or ambiguous genitalia on either page. If one is going to include a gallery of variation in human genitalia, one should be less concerned with “attractiveness” and more concerned with accuracy in representing variation.
Most people are looking for human vulvas and human penis's than those of animals - why blindly copy the penis? I do not understand why there should be parity between vulva and penis, nor do I understand why one would want to reduce the pictures in synergy. The vulva is not equivalent to the penis - and the argument seems weird to me.93.96.148.42 (talk) 05:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Several photos on this page are unnecessary and appear to have been uploaded for prurient purposes:
Please remove the photo "Vulva with hair trimmed" because it is not necessary to the page.
Please remove the photo "Variation in the appearance of women's external genitalia" because it is not necessary.
Please remove the photo "In the left image female genitalia are in the resting state. In the right image the female is sexually aroused, the vulva is moist and the labia are slightly swollen" because such a graphic photo is not necessary.
Please remove the photo "Pubic hair removal is practiced in many cultures and has been common in the western world since the end of the 20th century" because it is not necessary.
Please remove the photo "Labiaplasty: Reduction of the labia minora" because it is not necessary.
Not done: Necessity isn't the operative criterion in deciding whether to include a given image. All of the images you mention appear informative and educational in nature. Keep in mind that prurience is subjective (you have offered no evidence concerning the uploaders' purposes), and Wikipedia is not censored. Rivertorch (talk) 08:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
.jpg)
Not done: Necessity isn't the operative criterion in deciding whether to include a given image. All of the images you mention appear informative and educational in nature. Keep in mind that prurience is subjective (you have offered no evidence concerning the uploaders' purposes), and Wikipedia is not censored. Rivertorch (talk) 08:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
